DOCSLIB.ORG

Lang;Uage, Thought, and Communication Those One "Says to Oneself" When One Has That Thought

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lang;Uage, Thought, and Communication Those One -----GILBERT HARMAN----- - LANGUAGE, 1'HOUCH'I', AND COMMUNlCATION communication is the communication of thought. The parties involved typically communicate with the language they use in thinking. 111e words used to communicate a thought are the same as or similar to Lang;uage, Thought, and Communication those one "says to oneself" when one has that thought. Linguistic com­ munication does not typically require any complicated system of coding and decoding. Our usual translation scheme for understanding others is what Quine calls the homophonic one. Words are used to communicate thoughts that would ordinarily be thought in those or similar words. It I shall discuss two apparently conflicting views about our use of is true that allowance must sometimes be made for irony and other such natural language. The first view, that language is used primarily in devices; but in that case the thought communicated is some simple thought, has rarely been given explicit formulation but may be asso­ function of what would be normally communicated by a literal use of ciated with the theories of W . V. Quine and Wilfrid Sellars. The sec­ those words. ond view, that language is used primarily in communication, has been More precisely, linguistic communication typically involves commu­ explicitly put forward by Noam Chomsky, J. A. Fodor, and J. J. Katz, nication of what is sometimes called "propositional content." A speaker among others, and may also be associated (I think) with the theories says, "The door is shut," 'Shut the door," "Is the door shut?" or some of Paul Ziff and Donald Davidson. I shall describe each view and then such thing. He does so in part to get his hearer to think of the door's try to say where I think the truth lies. being shut. This first view holds that in such a situation, if communica­ 1. The view that language is used primarily in thought. This view is tion is successful, the hearer will think of the door's being shut by not that all or even most thinking or theorizing is in some natural lan­ adopting the appropriate sentential attitude. We might say that the guage. We may reasonably suppose that animals think, that children hearer attends to the sentence, "The door is shut," where this is a tech­ can think before they learn a natural language, and that speakers of a nical sense of "attends to." natural language can have thoughts they cannot express in language. Notice that the claim is not that a person can think of the door's The view is rather that anyone who fully learns a natural language can being shut only by attending to the sentence, "The door is shut." He and does sometimes think in that language. More precisely, it is that might instead attend to an "equivalent" sentence, where the relevant some of a speaker's so-called propositional attitudes are to be construed sort of equivalence is that discussed near the end of this paper; he as, at bottom, attitudes toward sentences of his language. A speaker of might even attend to a nonlinguistic representation that is part of a English may believe that the door is open by believing-true the sen­ system of representation he uses in thinking, as long as the representa­ tence, "The door is open." Another may fear that the door is open by tion is relevantly equivalent to "The door is shut" in English. The claim fearing-true "The door is open." A third may think of the door's being is rather that normally, when a speaker successfully communicates in open by adopting the appropriate attitude toward "The door is open." English by saying, "The door is shut," etc., the hearer thinks of the Strictly speaking, sentential attitudes involve sentences conceived un­ door's being shut by attending to the English sentence, "The door is der one or another, more or less detailed grammatical analysis. I shall shut." There will normally be a relatively simple grammatical relation­ return to this point near the end of this essay. For now, I shall speak ship between the sentence the speaker uses to communicate certain loosely of sentential attitudes as attitudes toward sentences. "propositional content" and the sentence to which the hearer must at­ The view that the primary use of language is in thought has roughly tend if communication is to be successful. The "deep structure" of the the following implications for the theory of communication. Linguistic latter sentence is the same as or a part of the deep structure of the former. Since sentential attitudes involve sentences conceived under AUTH®R's NOTE: The preparation of this paper was supported in part by grants from NEH and NSF. grammatical analyses, it is sufficient that the hearer should attend to 270 271 Gilbert Harman l.ANCUAGE, THOUCllT, AND COMMUNICATION the sentence uttered conceived under the appropriate analysis. In this or ideas and the decoding of the phonetic and syntactic structure ex­ sense, linguistic communication does not typically make use of compli­ hibited in such a physical phenomenon by other speakers in the form 1 cated principles of coding and decoding and our usual translation of an inner, private experience of the same thoughts or ideas. scheme is the homophonic one. The hearer need only hear the sentence Katz takes seriously the notion that linguistic communication ordinarily uttered as having the appropriate structural description. He does not and typically involves such coding and decoding. He does not agree that need to go on to translate the sentence, under that description, into typically one thinks in language and that the most usual "code" used anything else in order to understand it. in communication is the homophonic one. He does not believe that the Proponents of the view that language is primarily used in thought can words used in communication are usually the same as or similar to those point out that, although one might use a natural language as a code, that make up the thought communicated. As a result he sees linguistic so that one's listeners would have to use complicated principles of de­ communication as a relatively complicated business and he takes the coding in order to understand what has been said, this would not be main use of language to be its use in communication: an ordinary case of linguistic communication. They would also point Natural languages are vehicles for communication in which syntac­ out that, when a person learns a second language, he may at first have tically structured and acoustically realized objects transmit meaningful to treat the new language as a code; but hopefully he soon learns to messages from one speaker to the other. The basic question that think directly in the second language and to communicate with other can be asked about natural languages is: what are the principles for re­ lating acoustic objects to meaningful messages that make a natural lan­ speakers of· that language in the ordinary way, which does not involve guage so important and flexible a form of communication? 2 complex coding and decoding or any sort of translation. Furthermore, proponents can say, when a person thinks out loud, it I think that in theory Noam Chomsky rejects Katz's view of commu­ is not always true that he has to find a linguistic way to express some­ nication and natural languages. He takes the primary function of lan­ thing that exists apart from language. Without language many thoughts guage to be its use in the free expression of thought. He speaks approv­ and other propositional attitudes would not even be possible. In learn­ ingly of Humboldt's emphasis on the connection between language and ing his first natural language, a child does not simply learn a code thought, especially the way in which a particular language brings with which he can use in communicating his thoughts to others and in de­ it a world view that colors perception, thought, and feeling. According coding what they say. He acquires a system of representation in which to Chomsky's description of Humboldt's view, to have a language is to he may express thoughts made possible by that very system. This is ob­ have a system of concepts vious when one acquires for the first time the language of a science or and it is the place of a concept within this system (which may differ of mathematics. The claim is that it is no less true when one learns his somewhat from speaker to speaker) that, in part, determines the way in which the hearer understands a linguistic expression . [T]he con­ first natural language. cepts so formed are systematically interrelated in an "inner totality," That provides a rough sketch of the view that language is used pri­ with varying interconnections and structural relations ... This inner marily in thought. I shall say more about that view below. Now I want totality, formed by the use of language in thought, conception, and ex­ to describe the apparently conflicting theory that communication pro­ pression of feeling, functions as a conceptual world interposed through vides the primary use of language. the constant activity of the mind between itself and the actual objects, and it is within this system that a word obtains its value . Conse­ 2. The view that language is used primarily in communication. J. J. quently, a language should not be regarded merely, or primarily, as a Katz states explicitly a view that is implicit in many things said by other means of communication . and the instrumental use of language linguists: 1 J. J. Katz, The Philosophy of Language (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), Roughly, linguistic communication consists in the production of p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE? Author(S): Hilary Putnam Source: Metaphilosophy , July 1970, Vol
    IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE? Author(s): Hilary Putnam Source: Metaphilosophy , July 1970, Vol. 1, No. 3 (July 1970), pp. 187-201 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24434824 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Metaphilosophy This content downloaded from 99.137.65.114 on Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:10:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms M ETA PHILOSOPHY Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1970 IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE?" Hilary Putnam In the last decade enormous progress seems to have been made in the syntactic theory of natural languages, largely as a result of the work of linguists influenced by Noam Chomsky and Zellig Harris. Comparable progress seems not to have been made in the semantic theory of natural languages, and perhaps it is time to ask why this should be the case. Why is the theory of meaning so hard? The meaning of common nouns. To get some idea of the difficulties, let us look at some of the problems that come up in connection with general names. General names are of many kinds.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Induction
    The Problem of Induction Gilbert Harman Department of Philosophy, Princeton University Sanjeev R. Kulkarni Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University July 19, 2005 The Problem The problem of induction is sometimes motivated via a comparison between rules of induction and rules of deduction. Valid deductive rules are necessarily truth preserving, while inductive rules are not. So, for example, one valid deductive rule might be this: (D) From premises of the form “All F are G” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion of the form “a is G” follows. The rule (D) is illustrated in the following depressing argument: (DA) All people are mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. The rule here is “valid” in the sense that there is no possible way in which premises satisfying the rule can be true without the corresponding conclusion also being true. A possible inductive rule might be this: (I) From premises of the form “Many many F s are known to be G,” “There are no known cases of F s that are not G,” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion can be inferred of the form “a is G.” The rule (I) might be illustrated in the following “inductive argument.” (IA) Many many people are known to have been moral. There are no known cases of people who are not mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. 1 The rule (I) is not valid in the way that the deductive rule (D) is valid. The “premises” of the inductive inference (IA) could be true even though its “con- clusion” is not true.
    [Show full text]
  • Judith Jarvis Thomson's Normativity
    Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Normativity Gilbert Harman June 28, 2010 Normativity is a careful, rigorous account of the meanings of basic normative terms like good, virtue, correct, ought, should, and must. Along the way Thomson refutes almost everything other philosophers have said about these topics. It is a very important book.1 Since I am going first in this symposium, I am mainly going to summarize this excellent book. At the end, I will try to indicate briefly I think why it refutes the sort of theory I and others have previously favored. Good Thomson begins by discussing evaluations using the word good. She notes as many others have that good is always used as an attributive adjective. 1This book discusses meta-ethics. She also plans a companion work of normative theory. 1 Something may be a good K or good in a certain respect, but nothing is good period. Thomson goes on to argue this means that emotivism, expressivism, pre- scriptivism and related accounts of the meaning of good cannot be generally correct. Nor does it make sense to suppose that there is no objective test for whether something is a good K or good for such and such a purpose. She argues persuasively that there is such a property as being a good K if and only if K is a goodness fixing kind. So there is no such property as being a good pebble, good act, a good fact, a good state of affairs, a good possible world, and so on, unless what is meant is, for example, a good pebble to use as a paperweight, a morally good act, a state of affairs that is good for Jones, a possible world that is a good example in a certain discussion, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae of Alvin Plantinga
    CURRICULUM VITAE OF ALVIN PLANTINGA A. Education Calvin College A.B. 1954 University of Michigan M.A. 1955 Yale University Ph.D. 1958 B. Academic Honors and Awards Fellowships Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1968-69 Guggenheim Fellow, June 1 - December 31, 1971, April 4 - August 31, 1972 Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1975 - Fellow, Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship, 1979-1980 Visiting Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford 1975-76 National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships, 1975-76, 1987, 1995-6 Fellowship, American Council of Learned Societies, 1980-81 Fellow, Frisian Academy, 1999 Gifford Lecturer, 1987, 2005 Honorary Degrees Glasgow University, l982 Calvin College (Distinguished Alumni Award), 1986 North Park College, 1994 Free University of Amsterdam, 1995 Brigham Young University, 1996 University of the West in Timisoara (Timisoara, Romania), 1998 Valparaiso University, 1999 2 Offices Vice-President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1980-81 President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1981-82 President, Society of Christian Philosophers, l983-86 Summer Institutes and Seminars Staff Member, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Metaphysics, 1968 Staff member and director, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion, 1973 Director, National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar, 1974, 1975, 1978 Staff member and co-director (with William P. Alston) NEH Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion (Bellingham, Washington) 1986 Instructor, Pew Younger Scholars Seminar, 1995, 1999 Co-director summer seminar on nature in belief, Calvin College, July, 2004 Other E. Harris Harbison Award for Distinguished Teaching (Danforth Foundation), 1968 Member, Council for Philosophical Studies, 1968-74 William Evans Visiting Fellow University of Otago (New Zealand) 1991 Mentor, Collegium, Fairfield University 1993 The James A.
    [Show full text]
  • Noam Chomsky, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, with a Forward By
    Noam Chomsky, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, with a Forward by Neil Smith. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xvi, 230. Reviewed by Gilbert Harman, Princeton University Here are seven essays that describe and deplore a philosophical double standard that respects the methods and results of physics, chemistry, and biology but not the methods and results of linguistics and other sciences of the mind. One sign of the double standard is that, while hardly anyone thinks one can do philosophy of physics without knowing physics, it is all too common for to think one can do philosophy of language without knowing linguistics. Chomsky is, of course, the leading figure in contemporary linguistics. Starting in the 1950s, his development of generative grammar was an important factor in the shift from behavioristic to cognitive approaches to language and mind. Chomsky's approach takes the goal of linguistics to be to characterize the human faculty of language, noting its differences from the human faculties for general problem solving science. As Chomsky and other linguists tried to give explicit characterizations of the competence of a speaker of a language like English, it became clear that a child learning language simply does not have the sort of evidence available that would enable it to learn the relevant principles from scratch. There is a "poverty of the stimulus." The child must be prepared to acquire language with these principles in a way that it is not prepared to acquire the principles of, say, physics or quantification theory. It is clear that normal children acquire a language that reflects their particular linguistic environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
    The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Proper Names and Their Role in Social Ontology
    Proper Names and Their Role in Social Ontology Marek Nagy Palacký University, Olomouc Abstract: The article deals with an applicability of John Searle’s theory of social ontology to linguistic category of proper names . We suggest that in the context of Searle’s theory we can consider proper names to be a kind of social institution . By several examples from anthropolinguistic research and from the field of theoretical onomastics we try to show that proper names meet conditions specified by John Searle, in particu- lar that – through different communities all over the world – they are “holders” of various types of deontic power . At the end of our article we shortly weigh the possibility that proper names can be regard as status indicators (in terms of Searle’s theory) too . Keywords: baptism, deontic power, onomastics, proper names, social ontology . Blake, John? Nothing here. Alright, try my legal name. You should use your full name. I like that name, Robin. Dark Knight Rises To speak about problems of proper names in the context of philo- sophical views of John Searle makes sense for various reasons . Primar- ily, professor Searle has dealt with the category of proper names re- peatedly: In fact, he started his career with the text Proper Names (see Searle 1958) and the conception presented here brought him directly in “textbooks” of this important philosophical debate; proper names as rather strange and interesting individuals are aptly shown also in Sear- le’s Speech Acts (see Searle 1969; the evidence of strangeness could be the mentioned and everlasting discussion on their reference behavior, Organon F 19 (2012), 137-147 © 2012 The Author.
    [Show full text]
  • Donald Davidson ERNEST LEPORE and KIRK LUDWIG
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXVIII (2004) Donald Davidson ERNEST LEPORE AND KIRK LUDWIG avidson, Donald (Herbert) (b. 1917, d. 2003; American), Willis S. and Marion DSlusser Professor, University of California at Berkeley (1986–2003). Previ- ously Instructor then Professor in Philosophy at: Queens College New York (1947–1950), Stanford University, California (1950–1967), Princeton University (1967–1969), Rockefeller University, New York City (1970–1976), University of Chicago (1976–1981), University of California at Berkeley (1981–2003). John Locke Lecturer, University of Oxford (1970). One of the most important philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century, Donald Davidson explored a wide range of fundamental topics in meta- physics, epistemology, ethics, and the philosophies of action, mind, and language. His impact on contemporary philosophy is second only to that of his teacher W. V. O. Quine, who, along with Alfred Tarski, exerted the greatest influence on him. Given the range of his contributions, his work emerges as surprisingly systematic, an expression and working out of a number of central guiding ideas. Among his most important contributions are 1. his defense of the common sense view that reasons, those beliefs and desires we cite in explaining our actions, are also causes of them [11], 2. his groundbreaking work in the theory of meaning, and his proposal, based on Tarski’s work on recursive truth definitions for formal languages, for how to formulate a compositional semantic theory for a natural language [29, 46, 47, 50, 51], 3. his development of the project of radical interpretation as a vehicle for investigating questions about meaning and the psychological attitudes involved in understanding action [7, 15, 42, 44, 48], 309 310 Ernest Lepore and Kirk Ludwig 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Relativism Explained
    Moral Relativism Explained Gilbert Harman 1 What Is Moral Relativism? According to moral relativism, there is not a single true morality. There are a variety of possible moralities or moral frames of reference, and whether something is morally right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, etc. is a relative matter—relative to one or another morality or moral frame of reference. Something can be morally right relative to one moral frame of reference and 1 morally wrong relative to another. It is useful to compare moral relativism to other kinds of 2 relativism. One possible comparison is with motion relativism. There is no such thing as absolute motion or absolute rest. Whether something is moving or at rest is relative to a spatio- temporal frame of reference. Something may be at rest in one such frame of reference and moving in another. There is no such thing as absolute motion and absolute rest, but we can make do with relative motion and rest. Similarly, moral relativism is the view that, although there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, we can make do with relative right and wrong. 3 Paul Boghossian suggests a different comparison. When people decided that there were no witches and no such thing as witchcraft, they did not become relativists about witches; they gave up their beliefs about witches. It would have been a mistake for them to conclude that witchcraft is a relative matter, so that someone could be a witch in relation to one witch framework but not in relation to another.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    January 2011 Volume 84, Issue 3 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association apa THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION Central Division Program University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 www.apaonline.org The American Philosophical Association Central Division One Hundred Eighth Annual Meeting Minneapolis Hilton Hotel Minneapolis, Minnesota March 30 - April 2, 2011 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (ISSN 0065-972X) is published five times each year and is distributed to members of the APA as a benefit of membership and to libraries, departments, and institutions for $75 per year. It is published by The American Philosophical Association, 31 Amstel Ave., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Periodicals Postage Paid at Newark, DE and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Proceedings and Addresses, The American Philosophical Association, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Editor: David E. Schrader Phone: (302) 831-1112 Publications Coordinator: Erin Shepherd Fax: (302) 831-8690 Associate Editor: Robin Smith Web: www.apaonline.org Meeting Coordinator: Linda Smallbrook Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association, the major publication of The American Philosophical Association, is published five times each academic year in the months of September, November, January, February, and May. Each annual volume contains the programs for the meetings of the three Divisions; the membership list; Presidential Addresses; news of the Association, its Divisions and Committees, and announcements of interest to philosophers. Other items of interest to the community of philosophers may be included by decision of the Editor or the APA Board of Officers.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Nature of Morality' in Gilbert Harman: an Appraisal
    International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary & Multidisciplinary Studies (IRJIMS) A Peer-Reviewed Monthly Research Journal ISSN: 2394-7969 (Online), ISSN: 2394-7950 (Print) Volume-I, Issue-I, February 2015, Page No. 80-88 Published by: Scholar Publications, Karimganj, Assam, India, 788711 Website: http://www.irjims.com ‘The Nature of Morality’ in Gilbert Harman: An Appraisal Oyedola, David A Department of Philosophy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Abstract This study examines Gilbert Harman‟s submission that moral beliefs are incapable of the sort of empirical confirmation characteristic of scientific beliefs, in his work, „The Nature of Morality.‟ This study argues that the incapability of moral beliefs to be empirically confirmed characteristic of scientific beliefs, as espoused by Harman, has not undermined the nature of moral beliefs and the existence of moral universe. Nevertheless, the study concedes that the fact that Harman‟s grounds are appealing, his claim is insufficient. The study will conclude that moral beliefs cannot be reduced to nothingness: because they (moral beliefs) need not be empirically confirmed; a formal relationship between moral beliefs and empirical confirmation is not a matter of necessity; and, they (moral beliefs) have independent existence from scientific observation. The method of philosophical exposition and analysis will be employed. Key Words: Morality, Science, Confirmation, Moral universe, Empirical universe. Background Analysis: In recent years, the incapability of moral beliefs to be empirically confirmed characteristic of scientific beliefs has been gaining currency. W.V.O Quine is a major exponent, while Gilbert Harman is a mentee of Quine; moral beliefs, he (Harman) believes, cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed using empirical verification.
    [Show full text]
  • THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS Thispage Intentionally !Efi Blank THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS
    ROY A. SORENSEN THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS Thispage intentionally !efi blank THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ROY A. SORENSEN OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York Oxford Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Săo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin lbadan Copyright © 1992 by Roy A. Sorensen First published in 1992 by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Av enue, New York, New York 10016 First Issued as an Oxford University Press paperback, 1998 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press, !ne. AU rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sorensen, Roy A. Thought expriments Roy A. Sorensen p. cm. Includes bibliographica1 references and index. ISBN 0-19-507422-X ISBN 0-19-512913-X (pbk.) 1 Thought and thinking. 2. Logic 3. Philosophy and science 1. Title B105.T54S67 1992 !01-dc20 9136760 1357 986 42 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For Julia, a woman of fine distinctions Thispage intentionally !efi blank ACKNOWLEDG MENTS This book has indebted me to many people. The first group consists of the individuals who attended colloquia given at the Graduate Center of the City University of New Yo rk, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Rutgers University, the State University of New Yo rk at Stony Brook, Virginia Tech, and the 1990 lnter-University Conference for Philosophy of Science in Du­ brovnik.
    [Show full text]